stupid question, can I run this on a 64GB M1 max laptop (16' inch)
Llama 2
721–730 of 860 posts
Re: Llama 2
#722Earlier quoted context omitted.
Base LLaMAv1 would refuse to answer certain questions. It wasn't as aggressive as OpenAI models or the safety aligned finetunes, but some kind of alignment was there.
Normal training content has "alignment". It's not going to instantly be super racist and endorse cannibalism if it's "unaligned".
It very specifically mentioned something about LLaMA not being trained to answer that in the response.
Again, its extremely minimal, but I think it picked something up from the Llama info facebook inserted.
Re: Llama 2
#723Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think more Apple. It's not like Google or Microsoft would want to use LLaMA when they have fully capable models themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon does as well. Apple is the big laggard in terms of big tech and complex neural network models.
I think Google or Microsoft probably would want to use LLaMa for various purposes like benchmarking and improving their own products. Check out this other condition from the license: v. You will not use the Llama Materials or any output or results of the Llama Materials to improve any other large language model (excluding Llama 2 or derivative works thereof). https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/blob/main/LICENS…
A pointless provision given that the License doesn't cover the output of the model, so I can redistribute outputs to someone else, and then they (since they aren't beholden to the license) can now do as they like.
And they want to be very careful about labeling outputs as derivative works, because the moment they do that then they have no defense against the model being a derivative work of every single input.
Re: Llama 2
#724Earlier quoted context omitted.
> get this question correct I am willing to bet a million dollars that it is unlikely any single model will ever be able to answer any question correctly. The implications then are that one cannot use a single question evaluate whether a model is useful or not.
I would go even further, use models to answer questions only if you don't care whether the answer is correct or not.
what is the use case for that approach?
Re: Llama 2
#725anyone got a torrent again so I don't have to agree to the license?
Re: Llama 2
#726Be careful when using Llama 2 for large institutions, their licencing agreement may not permit its use:
Additional Commercial Terms. If, on the Llama 2 version release date, the monthly active users of the products or services made available by or for Licensee, or Licensee's affiliates, is greater than 700 million monthly active users in the preceding calendar month, you must request a license from Meta, which Meta may grant to you in its sole discretion, and you are not authorized to exercise any of the rights under this Agreement unless or until Meta otherwise expressly grants you such rights.Re: Llama 2
#727Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Model playground here: llama2.ai is there any way to rename the model from "Assistant" to tune out those "I am a large language model" excuses?
In the menu there's an option to modify the prompt.
> In the menu there's an option to modify the prompt.
Yes, that's the first thing I saw, but there's no way to tell the chat formatter to put something other than "Assistant:" at the end for completions.
Re: Llama 2
#728Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh. This seemed to be weirdly offended by Lie groups the first time I tried asking (the answer is also subtly wrong as far as I can tell): >>> Hello there >>> In mathematics, what is the group SO(3)? The Special Orthogonal Group SO(3) is a fundamental concept in linear algebra and geometry. It consists of all 3x3 orthogonal matrices, which are matrices that have the property that their transpose is equal to themselv…
It's also wrong: SO(n) matrices have determinant +1.
And, you know, it should be "their transpose is equal to their inverse", not "their transpose is equal to themselves".
Re: Llama 2
#729Re: Llama 2
#730Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whether the brain is "designed" or not is really irrelevant to the point here. It has nothing to do with whether an objective function is "wrong" or not.
But it does have to do with whether there is an objective function or not. And there isn't. Brains are the way they are because they evolved that way, because circumstances at some point favored primates with larger brains. Maybe because it allowed us to cooperate, maybe because it enabled skills such as language or higher order thinking and modeling whatever trait you want to substitute for 'the' advantage that allo…
If intelligence in humans can allow for such behaviour then the same can be said for machines.
It's not suddenly un-intelligent because it faces issues people also face neither is the driving function "wrong".
Sense data prediction and fabrication isn't some trivial side note thing either. It's an essential part of how we process the world.